Today I readthis post that Liz Gross wrote on the opportunities Facebook Graph Search presents for college campuses. To summarize, Liz shares that many of the social graph results gives colleges and universities the opportunity to gather a more in depth look at their student population. She gives examples searches such as, “People who like UW-Madison and are in high school and live in Milwaukee”, and “Music people who attend Bridgewater State University listen to“. To the last one she says,
A campus activities group could plan what bands to invite to campus to ensure a higher turnout. In case you’re curious, the top results are Taylor Swift, Drake, Kenny Chesney, and Eminem.
Now, I am going to pause here to say that I do not disagree with the points Liz is making in her post. Liz works as a social media manager with experience in marketing at a university, so the ideas in her post clearly align with her interests and areas of research. However, my issue is this: if we allow ourselves as higher education/student affairs professionals to view the best use of social network technologies as a way to decide between a Taylor Swift or Drake concert, we will never successfully engage with our students via technology channels.
While reading a recent NY Times article on LGBTQIA students, this phrase stuck with me, “she first heard the term “bi-gender” from Kate, who found it on Tumblr.” If that doesn’t blow your mind, go back and read it again. Let it sink in. Students enrolling on our campuses are using social network technologies to develop and understand their personal identities. Students who are going to come us as advisors, professors, mentors, and figures of authority in the ivory tower, and want to discuss these issues of identity formation and intersecting lines between personal lives, public lives, and digital citizenship (perhaps that is all actually the same thing).
Again and again I read/hear the ninjas, gurus, experts, mavens, folks in higher ed who are above the average on the technology curve talk about “convincing” the “other” folks on campus why they need to “buy in to” and use technology. My thoughts are this, if we as the “experts” continually use technology in ways that do not stretch our limits, if we are providing information that is in other ways self-evident, why should we expect them to care? Technology has revolutionized communication, how can we grab onto this and revolutionize the way we communicate with students?
I think the most important post from Liz’s post is actually one she never addresses — when explaining why she does not use screenshots, she says it’s due to the “amount of personal information the searches revealed about people I didn’t know”. Take a look at this awesome tumblr that popped up the other day.
Image from Actual Facebook Graph Searches
Much like this Diversity Officer from Gallaudet who received wide spread criticism for signing an anti-gay petition, Facebook Graph Searches social network technologies mean (among many other things) that our own identities, conflicting interests, political views, etc. are viewed in a more public arena than ever before. “Personal information about people we don’t know” is now the norm. What is not lost on me, is that we have the ability to influence this impact on higher education by being intentional and thoughtful about how we use this information. Do we raise money for Taylor Swift, or do we have open dialogues around ways that traditional gender roles continue to be perpetuated through online media? Do we scramble for ways to submit budget requests for ipads, or are we looking at the ways our campus technology use can actually increase the social class gap among our students?
I think these are excellent comments, Julie. I have lots of thoughts about this implications of this, but just wanted to introduce the concept on my blog. For instance, there are a lot of things that are now very searchable and public because of Graph Search (like religious views and sexual orientation) that could result in potentially hateful behavior…or a way for people from different identity afilliations to find each other. We need to understand how to use the technology to achieve the tactical and strategic goals of our business units, while at the same time using it to engage students, talk about identities (digital, ethnic, gender, sexual, etc.), and create more relevant and challenging conversations on campus (or online).
It’s just too much for one blog post. I’m glad you added your perspective.
Thanks for commenting, Liz. I agree, it’s a lot for one post — but for me they are so intertwined that to discuss one without the other misses important points. Even things like the type of questions you ask through social graph have implications across class, race, identities, etc. It’s an exciting time for sure, but lots of layers to sort through.
“Students enrolling on our campuses are using social network technologies to develop and understand their personal identities.”
YES!
This is so true – let’s be more purposeful with how we use information and understand others on our campus. It’s less about the technology tool, and rather how we are using it to engage and support our learners. Thank you for posting this Ms. Larsen. Well said.
Let’s hope the launch of Facebook Graph provides the wake up call many need to re-look at what they publicly share, who they share it with and indeed who is able to share it on their behalf.
We know marketing is one motive for these searches but what of prospective employers? – With even more data to access what picture will this paint? Our students need to be made aware of the impact that their digital footprint portrays but potentially also that of their connections.
Sue, I think the idea of employers is a great point. I think it also calls forth a discussion about what is the “proper” digital footprint. I imagine this will change drastically in the next few years as we continue to share more about ourselves online, and folks become more savvy in manipulating their online presence.